On Feb 1, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Markus Roberts wrote:
Hmm. I'm a bit up in the air on this. Whomever takes this
refactor on will
be doing a significant memory swap, and it's likely to be a
refactor of both
the facts and Facter itself (to provide whatever necessary
infrastructure
for this kind of data sharing).
Note that at this point it's a question of working on the features
for rowlf
or refactoring facter, and I'm not convinced that facter is the
bigger win.
I'll check around internally, though, and see what we see.
When Jesse brought this up last week I was ambivalent, leaning towards
let-it-lay but open to persuasion if there was a win to be had. It's
not that I'm not in favor of paying off technical debt, just that we
have so much of it relative to our bandwidth that we need to be
careful we don't try to do everything and wind up doing nothing.
I think that's the main concern.
What I'd like to see is some up-front planning to really attack
Facter, and marshal resources then, rather than just jumping and doing
it.
Given how much we're trying to push rowlf at the moment, now does not
feel like exactly the right time.
--
Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a
friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger. -- Franklin P. Jones
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies -|- http://reductivelabs.com -|- +1(615)594-8199
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet
Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
